It seems to me that if the Masters of the Universe want to reap the benefits of Uncle Sams First Insurance Company, they need to simultaneously subject themselves to federal regulation. If youve helped wreck the economy, shatter thousands of lives, and still enjoy a publicly-funded quasi-bailout, then its not an unreasonable demand.

Turcopolier is impressed with Hillary Clinton’s long-term plans for Iraq, although the chances of her ever being in a position to implement them are looking increasingly slim.

Diane Marie Amann looks at the US government human rights abuse list which conspicuously excludes China despite ongoing serious abuses of which Tibet is only the most recent. Meanwhile, Students for a Free Tibet continues to provide hour by hour blog and news coverage of the protests and Chinese reprisals there. In addition to 67 people reported slaughtered by the Chinese government in Lhasa, SFFT provides graphically disturbing photographic evidence of a further 20 deaths in Ngaba “Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture” in the Tibetan province of Amdo on March 16. Olympic boycott time?

Economics

The most striking finding, as it had been in earlier census-based studies, was that for… blue collar families the …more the family earns, the less likely it is that their sons will attend university, and the more likely it is that they will attend TAFE.

Harry Clarke was intrigued to learn about farmers’ attitudes from the Four Corners program on the rural crisis.

Law

Peter Timmins suggests that Treasury head Ken Henry’s revelation of the advice he didn’t give to Kevin Rudd on minimum wage rises probably doesn’t presage a new era of openness and transparency by that department.

Arts

Sport

Shaun forgets to mention that Parramatta are the worst team in any sport since the dawn of man – and will be until the heat death of the universe – but otherwise does a pretty good job wrapping up the first round of the NRL.

“I usually held myself back, just took it easy or looked for support, just cruising. In union, you have to be running 100 per cent all the time,” he said. “I didn’t really need to run 100 per cent [in league]. …”

Share this:

About Ken Parish

Ken Parish is a legal academic at Charles Darwin University, with research areas in public law (constitutional and administrative law) and teaching & learning theory and practice. He has been a legal academic for almost 12 years. Before that he ran a legal practice in Darwin for 15 years and was a Member of the NT Legislative Assembly for almost 4 years in he early 1990s.

Jeremy’s use of that man’s ID pass photo seems to me to be a case of online vigilantism, which, like any form of vigilantism, is unacceptable.

It leaves open the possibility that anyone could get their noggin on someone’s blog (without consent or knowledge) because an aggrieved party has access to a mobile phone with a camera and a lack of impulse control. Who next; the local shop assistant who keys in the wrong price when your buying your veggies?

While Jeremy’s action will probably come to nothing (and he’ll still have to pay the fine), it should be noted that people who’ve engaged in other forms of online vigilantism have caused incredible damage. One case involved someone getting back at some silly girl who didn’t clean up after her dog and another involved a girl getting back at her emotionally former friend who didn’t want to be friends with her anymore.

Posting someone’s photo online in such a way is the modern equivalent of nailing someone’s picture to a tree and calling for a posse to take revenge.

“Jeremys use of that mans ID pass photo seems to me to be a case of online vigilantism, which, like any form of vigilantism, is unacceptable.”

Oh, don’t be silly. I described precisely what he did, why I objected to it, and put his name there so that one day he might see it and feel some kind of remorse.

I didn’t call for a lynch mob. Timmy and Andy have, though.

PS Of course I’ve paid the fine. I’m not going up to Queensland to fight a stupid parking ticket! I simply listed it as one of several annoyances in a post about people venting. I didn’t – although, given Blair’s obsession with me, perhaps I should have – think it would go any further.

I am sorry, but I simply disagree. Don’t care what others have said, and not interested in other people’s obsessions (people who talk about people a lot usually have a big crush on them).

If you can’t see that it’s wrong (and helps create a potentially dangerous slippery slope) to put people’s photos up on your blog in such a situation, well, nothing anybody is going to say is going to change your mind. It beggars belief that you think that way, though.

“One day he might feel some kind of remorse”.

I suggest he’s more likely to feel pissed-off, and, of course, he has no doubt forgotten about your little matter anyway.

So presumably you think it’s aok to put pictures of errant cab drivers or police officers or the poor old lady down the back who hasn’t been adhering to water restrictions etc etc etc etc etc. I mean WTF.

Pointed, not so rhetorical question: would describing someone as “some petty little tyrant airport official” and “a miserable bastard who deserves the eternal torment of being [himself]” be actionable?

In, say, the hypothetical circumstance that said person was later called into their boss’s office, given a bollocking and told they’d just blown their customer relations bonus, which was a bloody pity, because if this hadn’t happened it would have been in the bag?

Well…technically Shaun, I have one team whose colours are similar shades to my blood – Easts – and three others I am contractually obliged to lend some support when they aren’t playing the True Team owing to geographical curiosities. So while Easts are the only True Team, I have to offer some support to Wests because, well, I live a few minutes from Campbelltown Stadium, and Brisbane and North Queensland because, well, I was born there.

I offer that since we all bleed a shade of red, we must all be Queensland Origin supporters. Except for apostates.

PC – surely that’s worst case? Best case is that he’s given the keys to the city of Maroochydore and a gold pass to the local surf club, entitling him to a free feed, drinks included, every Friday night, for the rest of his natural life.

Of course, the only reason his photo was taken by my friend in the first place was his abusive conduct.

Parking officers aren’t “miserable bastards” just because they fine people. That’s their job, and of course, like everyone else, I usually just pay the fine and move on. (And of course, I’ve paid the fine in this instance as well.) That said, the conduct of this particular airport employee was unnecessary in the circumstances; I wasn’t blocking the crossing; I wasn’t blocking drivers’ view of the crossing; I was barely even touching the crossing; and I was only there for a few seconds.

I’m staggered that a minor vent is such exciting news for the likes of Timmy and Andy, though.

I get the feeling personal feelings towards other “interwebites” is more important to some folks than issues of justice or a person’s right to have a matter heard through formal processes. He’s guilty, now “cyber” him so short lived ego gratification can be felt. Bugger his privacy and all those pesky things.

The rights and wrongs of this are not as clear as the posturing on either side implies. There’s no rule that says you can’t put someone’s picture on a website without their permission. If Jeremy had posted this guy’s picture because he did something good — like rescue Jeremy’s cat — no one would be objecting, even if it was done without permisssion. On the other hand, if Jeremy made some unprovable claim defaming the man — that he assaulted him, or that he flashed his private parts at Jeremy’s girlfriend — everyone would object, even if it wasn’t a legally actionable defamation. It’s somewhere in the middle — Jeremy’s taking him to task over something that the man could easily dispute, in a situation that is open to a wide range of interpretations. Even if Mr Gavey, or anyone in his orbit, happened to find the picture, it’s highly unlikely he would suffer any advers consequences — if anything, as someone pointed out, his employer might be pleased to discover he is so zealous.

The real problem with Jeremy’s action is not that he has grossly violated some ethical code; it’s just that it’s not an edifying spectacle to see a highly educated and well-paid professional using a sophisticated technology to beat up on a nobody, one who is already despised, and who has no means of reply. Perhaps Mr Gavey deserves it, but then again, it’s a horrible job he’s got. Parking officers have to listen to excuses all day, usually delivered abusively, so they probably grow deaf to even the reasonable ones. And maybe he was having a bad day.

At home, posting pictures of traffic cops
With him on top leakin yellow fun, arms raised in a v
And the dead lay in pools of urine below
Daddy didnt give attention
Oh, to the fact that mommy didnt care
King Jeremy the wicked…oh, ruled his world…

Clearly we remember pickin on the boy
Seemed a harmless little fuck
Ooh, but we unleashed a lion…
Gnashed his teeth and bit his “female friend’s” breast…
How can we forget?
And he shit me, an “anonymous left”
My jaw not hurtin…but ooh, dropped wide open

Daddy didnt give affection, no…
And the boy was something that mommy wouldnt wear
King Jeremy the wicked…oh, ruled his world
Jeremy spoke in class today…

That’s really funny, ‘cos my name’s Jeremy, and so’s the name of the character in the Pearl Jam song! Seriously, comedy gold, Mental. I can see why you’ve posted that to at least three comment threads now.

OK. That’s enough now. The whole thing is mutually snarky so I’ve let it go to this point (and participated once – couldn’t help myself). However it’s time to stop now. Any further ad hominem comments on this question will be deleted.

Odd isn’t it, how when one is polite — even respectful — but happens to disagree with your position is barred from commenting on your site (though no abusive language was ever used) turns to less intellectual (perhaps) and less flattering protrayals of you on other sites were your antics are in question?

Since he’s kept it going, three, “Mental”. Here, Blair’s, and mine, before I deleted it.

So sorry if I hurt your feelings by deleting your allegedly “polite even respectful” attempts to accuse me of being some kind of menace to society on my blog. Unfortunately for your efforts to attack me personally I decided that, frankly, I am not actually obliged to let you and your friends use my comment threads for the purpose of trying to attack me. I’m happy to let you use them to discuss your views on issues, but if all you’re interested in talking about is what an appalling human being you think I am, I’m afraid you’ll have to find another forum. A forum where people are really excited to get stuck into people with whom they disagree.

You’ve found such a forum? You in fact came from such a forum? How fantastic for you. Free speech wins again.

I agree with leftie. I was recently hit for 120 bucks or so at the ariport for parking about a minute longer than the allowed 5 minutes. The dick had an attitude too. Leftie I’ll get this guys pic and put it up there too. Those bastards all deserve to rosat. I can’t ever imagine anyone wanting that job.
the airport collects the fine by the way.

Hey niall, my guy looked wasn’t a white guy. What would you have said?

Sorry, I never posted the “adaptaion” of the Pearl Jam song at your site — but then, we have only your word now, don’t we? Because you delete and effectively ban all dissenting views, however innocuously written.

That’s all from me. Your anonymity, Lefty, is once again safe from the ravages of my keyboard.